Josh Block

The choice of Josh Block, 40, to head The Israel Project, one of the Jewish community’s fastest growing pro-Israel organizations, marked a clear shift for the group and in Block’s professional trajectory.

A former media relations professional, Block was best known as the combative spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he served for nine years, until 2010. Both during his time as the lobby front man in the press and afterward, Block struck a tough position against those critical of Israeli government policies, whether from within the left-leaning flanks of the Jewish community, or from the administration.

As president and CEO of TIP, Block has struggled to uphold a bipartisan image, stressing his past work with Democratic politicians, although he did not avoid criticizing the choice of Chuck Hagel as U.S. defense secretary.

Block took over the helm of TIP at a time of transition, after the turbulent departure of the group’s founder and president Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi. As head of the organization, which focuses on pro-Israel media and public education, Block led an operational overhaul that included slashing most of its international programs and cutting jobs. He then launched a pro-Israel news website and a magazine featuring in-depth reporting on the Middle East.

Block still sees much of the threat facing Israel as coming from individuals and groups within the liberal wing. TIP’s work under his leadership, he believes, “blunts the spread of false, malignant, even anti-Semitic claptrap.”

As the White House pins down a date in the coming weeks for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington, Martin Indyk has emerged as a frontrunner to lead the negotiations for the United States. Perhaps it's a good sign for the talks that Israeli backers and Palestinian backers, however grudingly, find him to be a palatable choice.

A seasoned negotiator and obsessive student of the protracted conflict, Indyk, if selected, will have another shot at bridging the Palestinian-Israeli divide against all odds.

Josh

"Martin has a long history of involvement and he knows all the players. Even more importantly, he knows the issues very well and what each side feels it needs on them," Dennis Ross, a former Mid East advisor to President Obama and counselor at the Washington Institute, told The Cable. "There is no substitute for that knowledge and that awareness -- and each side knows Martin has that knowledge."

Pale

On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry declared after a frenetic bout of shuttle diplomacy that an agreement was reached establishing a "basis" for resuming talks between Israel and Palestine, which in turn followed the announcement by senior Israeli minister Yuval Steinitz that long-serving Palestinian prisoners would be released.

The focus now shifts to Kerry's choice to take the lead in the talks.

As was first reported by Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen, Kerry's choice of Indyk is rumored to have already been accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians. Though Foggy Bottom officials insist "no decision has been made," that hasn't stopped observers of the region from weighing in on his apparent selection.

Indyk served as assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs during the Clinton administration and also served a stint at the National Security Council. In 1995, President Bill Clinton selected him as U.S. ambassador to Israel to work with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the Oslo peace process. But his journeys to the region didn't end there. In 2000, Indyk was sent again as ambassador to Israel in 2000 to work with Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The effort failed and ultimately preceded the second Palestinian intifada.

Though Indyk, like other Arab-Israeli negotiators, has had more than his share of disappointments, supporters say he brings a strong grasp of the issues.

"Any negotiator or mediator must have that awareness to avoid the impulse of having each side spend time arguing for their needs instead of addressing how their needs can be met by finding a way to satisfy the other side," Ross told The Cable. "Martin is superbly well qualified to play this role and is an excellent choice."

Nonetheless, some on the Palestinian side have raised questions about Indyk's supposed neutrality, given his work as a deputy research director at the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the ‘80s and later the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which maintains ties to AIPAC.

"I think it's problematic," said Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund. "Martin is more reasonable than many in Washington ... the problem is that Martin does have a background on the pro-Israel side and if the U.S. is trying to establish itself as an even-handed mediator, that doesn't help."

Still, Munayyer did not dispute the likelihood that Palestinian leaders signed off on Indyk's appointment. "I think there's a realization among the leadership of the Palestinians that Washington is a very pro-Israel place and on the spectrum of Martin Indyk and someone further to the right, it could be a lot worse," he said.

Meanwhile, support for Indyk on the pro-Israel side remains ironclad. "Ambassador Indyk has an important historical perspective on issues at hand, an understanding of Israel's unique security needs, and long-standing relationships with the key decision makers," said Josh Block, CEO of the Israel Project and a former AIPAC official. "If the Palestinians are ready to be honest with their people about the kind of difficult compromises these negotiations will require, and sincere about making peace with Israel, he could be the right person to help shepherd negotiations forward."

Indyk today heads the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution (where, full disclosure, he oversees the work of FP's Noah Shachtman, who is a fellow there). Born to a Jewish family in London, England and raised in a Sydney, Australia suburb, Indyk has openly confronted criticisms of his biography. In his 2009 book, Innocent Abroad, Indyk addressed the impact his Jewish and pro-Israel background had on perceptions of his role as a diplomat in the Clinton administration.

"The fact that I had begun my Washington career eleven years earlier working at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, often referred to as 'the Israel lobby') only reinforced the image in much of the Arab world and among pro-Arab Americans that Clinton's policy had been taken over by a Jewish cabal," he wrote. "Behind that stereotyping lay the reality that our Jewish identities generated a deep desire in all of us to make peace since we all believed that Israel's security depended on ending the conflict with its Arab neighbors and that American interests would be well served by doing so."

WASHINGTON, DC - TIP extends enormous gratitude to Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, upon his announcement that he will wrap up his tenure in Washington later this year.

An invaluable asset to the U.S.-Israel alliance, Ambassador Oren has made a powerful and lasting contribution to the strength and vitality of America’s special relationship with the Jewish State – our closest, most reliable and important ally in the Middle East. It is hard to think of another Israeli official who better understands the intense nature of today’s media environment and the importance of ensuring that the press, opinion leaders, decision makers and the American people get accurate facts and information about Israel and the Middle East. The heart of TIP's unique mission.

His tireless work as the steward of Israel’s connection to President Obama, Congress, the American media, the pro-Israel community and the American public, has made an immeasurable contribution to the advancement of Israel's security, economic vigor and place as a key pillar of America’s national interest and security.

Ambassador Oren’s dedication to the American-Israel alliance will no doubt continue long after he has left the Ambassadorship this fall. His expertise is one of the best assets available to the pro-Israel community and we look forward to working with him throughout the rest of his tenure in Washington, D.C., and long into the future.

TIP also congratulates Ambassador-Designate Ron Dermer, as he prepares to assume the post later this year. Like Ambassador Oren, Ambassador-Designate Dermer brings to the position tremendous savvy, ability to make Israel's case, and understanding of the stakes for Israel and the Jewish People. We look forward to working with him.

Ambassador-Designate Dermer, who happens to be a native of Florida, is widely respected in Washington and commended by diplomats and officials of both parties for his work on behalf of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) recently praised his vital role in forging warm and intimate ties between U.S. leaders and the Prime Minister of Israel, and fellow Florida Congresswoman and former Chair of the House International Relations Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) calls him a "terrific" choice as Israel's next ambassador to the United States.

The State of Israel and the Jewish People are enormously blessed to have such capable, passionate and articulate representatives in Washington. We extend out best wishes and warmest congratulations to the people of Israel, their government and the Prime Minister, and to both Michael Oren and Ron Dermer and their families.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Tower Magazine (TheTower.org/MAGAZINE), a NEW online long-form publication, launched its June issue this week, featuring six in-depth articles and a photo essay from contributors in Israel, Europe and the United States.

Each month the publication offers original, in-depth essays, reviews and reportage to give readers deeper perspective on Israel and the region. A vibrant, colorful home for new ideas, insights, narratives, research and perspective about Israel and the Middle East, The Tower Magazine brings readers to the Middle East with a depth and power never seen before.

TheTower.org, the official website of The Tower and The Tower Magazine, is a new nonprofit digital journalism portal focused on the Middle East, launched in March 2013 as a project of TIP (The Israel Project), a 501(c)3 nonpartisan educational organization based in Washington, D.C.

“The Tower Magazine is Vanity Fair meets Foreign Affairs,” said TIP President and CEO Josh Block. “Together with its daily component at TheTower.org, the website delivers reliable, fresh and definitive context and analysis in real time from well respected journalists and brilliant commentators, helping readers understand the news in what is an active and complex part of the world.”

“On the one hand, Israel is a dynamic, creative bold society that people should get to know better. On the other hand, the Middle East is undergoing a complex, constantly changing conflict. Only in long-form can you fully engage with the depth and the richness of the Middle East. We offer the best veteran writers combined with new voices and brilliant artistic photography to bring Israel and the Middle East to life in a way that has never been done before,” said Editor of TheTower.org/MAGAZINE David Hazony.

The Abyss: Can Anything Save Syria?: The world reels from the cruelty of the Syrian civil war. But as JONATHAN SPYER writes, a serious look at the rebels' struggle and the stakes of failure suggests that Western nations must get involved, and quickly.

The Greatest Living Hebrew Writer is an Arab: An accomplished novelist, screenwriter, and columnist, Sayed Kashua has taken Israel by storm. DEBRA KAMIN spoke with the non-Jew who has adopted the classic Jewish literary pose of the outsider—and pointed it at the Jewish state.

Hatred Begins in the Classroom: Everyone knows that for peace to prevail, schools need to teach coexistence between Arabs and Jews. But as ADI SCHWARTZ discovered, a recent report comparing Palestinian and Israeli textbooks only made matters worse.

My Jerusalem, Forever Divided, Forever One: As peace activist GERSHON BASKIN writes, Jerusalem after a peace agreement will have to find a new way to live, its beautiful mosaic of neighborhoods working together under multiple authorities, weaving together a very possible dream.

If Peace Never Comes, This Will Be the Reason: DEBORAH DANAN has organized co-existence dialogue for Israelis and Palestinians for years. But one big problem has always gotten in the way—and understanding it may give us the key to peace at last.

Can Street Art Change the World?: LAUREN DAVIDSON takes a look at the healing power of graffiti. An improbable group of tattoo, hip hop, and graffiti artists wants to change the way people see Israel. Is it just too much?

PHOTO ESSAY: City of Gold and Dreams and Blood: Sometimes the most ancient sites offer the most stirring personal moments. AVIRAM VALDMAN aims his camera at the unfathomable human experience that is Jerusalem.

###

The Israel Project (TIP) is a nonprofit educational organization that provides factual information about Israel and the Middle East to the press, policy-makers and the public.

WASHINGTON — As the new head of The Israel Project, Josh Block brings an aggressive, in-your-face style of operation to one of the Jewish community’s fastest-growing organizations, even as the group undergoes sweeping changes with his arrival.

It’s an approach that contrasts strikingly with that of his predecessor, TIP founder Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, under whose tenure the organization developed a reputation as Israel’s most effective nongovernmental public relations agency. But that may not be the most important part of the transformation now taking place .

Developed by Mizrahi as a multinational campaign to change perceptions of Israel worldwide, TIP is now withdrawing from the international arena, including countries, such as China and India, whose global influence is surging.

It was in 2002 that Mizrahi established TIP — a private initiative funded by wealthy backers that engaged journalists (and others) with information targeting their working needs. Among other things, TIP helped media people gain access to Israeli decision makers and expert sources, and conducted public opinion polls offering crucial nuggets of information about how people viewed Israel and its neighbors.

Where journalists seemed strongly critical of Israel, TIP wielded its formidable public relations resources to make its case and, it hoped, show them the error of their ways.

As Mizrahi’s successor, Block faces a double challenge. While overseeing massive changes in TIP’s organizational focus and personnel shifts in the group’s leadership, he is also attempting to reshape his own public image. To many, Block seems something like Mizrahi’s temperamental opposite: an aggressive defender of pro-Israel views, even at the price of openly quarreling with journalists, rival organizations and the Obama administration.

At a reception in a fancy Washington hotel March 21, Block celebrated the launch of The Tower, one of TIP’s new projects. An online long-form journalism publication devoted to Middle East and Israel issues, it is, as Block boasted, “Vanity Fair Meets Foreign Affairs.” Block addressed the crowd of journalists and foreign policy wonks gathered around an ice sculpture in the shape of the website’s logo.

The Tower’s first issue features a medley of writers representing a wide variety of viewpoints, a fact that TIP officials point out repeatedly. For Block, the new magazine and the daily website TheTower.org are viewed as a “home for ideas” supporting the group’s mission, which he defined in an email exchange as “to provide facts, and educate and inform the media and policy conversation about Israel and the Middle East.”

The idea of launching TIP’s own online publication follows a course set by other interest groups, among them the progressive Center for American Progress and its ThinkProgress blog, a publication that came under harsh attacks from Block before joining TIP, because of the views that some of its writers expressed on Israel.

The Tower Magazine’s editor is David Hazony, a conservative Israeli-American writer (and a Forward columnist). Hazony and Block refer to the publication as “nonprofit journalism,” which, the magazine editor believes, will help explain “the most misunderstood state” that is Israel. The first issue includes an essay arguing that Israel is America’s last ally in the Middle East; alongside it is an article comparing threats to children from violence in the United States with terror in Israel, and a discussion of gay and lesbian issues in Israel and how they differ from the debate in America. “I don’t think I’m advocating any ideology,” Hazony said, arguing that the publication should be read “for its own merits,” regardless of the group behind it.

The new publication is only a small part of a massive facelift at TIP. Mizrachi brought the group to life during the height of the second intifada, when images from the Middle East were plastered daily on the front pages of American newspapers, and Israel’s portrayal was at times that of the aggressor, not the victim.

Since then, TIP has been one of the fastest growing Jewish organizations. In 2011, according to the latest available tax filings, it began raising multi-year pledges and collected more than $19 million. From traditional hasbara — the Hebrew term for viewpoint promotion —focused on educating the press, TIP expanded to a global operation working in Europe, China, India, Latin America and Russia, and hosting an extensive Arabic-language operation. Mizrahi saw the group’s Mandarin and Arabic operations as particularly crucial to the future of pro-Israel advocacy. The group also spent $1 million a year on polling, hiring top political pollsters to examine messaging on Israel and to gauge international public opinion.

Much of this is now gone. TIP board members ultimately rejected Mizrahi’s view of China as a key arena in the battle to influence public opinion on Israel. TIP does still maintain its program in Arabic, which is based in Israel and will soon expand its publications. Funding for this program is provided mainly by one TIP donor, New York businessman Richard Perry. But beyond that board members have stressed the need to “go back to the basics” of the organization’s mission. By the time Block took over, TIP had completed the process of shutting down its other international operations in favor of focusing on the United States.

The leadership overhaul also involved the departure of many of TIP’s senior staff members, including Laura Kam, who was in charge of the group’s global affairs; director of communications Alan Elsner, and research director Meagan Buren. All former employees were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement preventing them from discussing their workplace.

Block, while stating that TIP’s mission and goals remain unchanged, comes to the organization with strong convictions about threats that pro-Israel advocacy faces from critics. He sees many of those critics as aligned with the liberal camp. And he paints them in stark terms.

“There exists today a well-coordinated and financed, albeit fringe, echo chamber of organizations and individuals ranging from anti-Zionist conspiracists and apologists for Iran, and [for] terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, to anti-Israel advocates and those hypocritically and relentlessly critical of Israel, seeking to spread and mainstream distortions and misinformation in pursuit of their misguided and often hostile agenda,” Block said. TIP’s work, he said, “blunts the spread of false, malignant, even anti-Semitic claptrap.”

Still, for Block, this is a painstakingly cautious choice of words. Known to many in the media world for his blunt style, Block went to war as recently as last year with CAP and Media Matters, accusing the groups of “borderline anti-Semitism” for using terms such as “Israel firsters.”

Armed with an impressive contact list of national journalists, Block has at times also taken on the Obama administration for its policies on Israel by sending massive email blasts and circulating publications critical of these policies. Most recently, Block got involved in the controversy over Obama’s choice of Chuck Hagel to be his defense secretary. In interviews, he attacked Hagel’s record on Iran and described his views as “well outside the mainstream.”

Block says that his intervention regarding Hagel was not partisan; rather, it was a policy opinion given before the nomination became official. By going to battle at that stage of the process, he said, “we were able to be descriptive of the facts and record, which helped lead to an important public conversation and a reversal [by Hagel] of views on the key Iran-related issues we identified.”

Block argued that national Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee took harsher positions against Hagel. But a former administration official noted that Block’s actions did not seem in line with TIP’s previous strict policy of not taking sides, at least directly, in ongoing partisan political clashes in Washington. The group’s departure from acting merely as a helpful source for pro-Israel information “calls into question what the role of TIP is, could be and should be,” said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, so as not to appear to be reflecting an official administration view.

Block, 39, was chosen to head TIP last summer after a lengthy search process following Mizrahi’s departure. He served previously as spokesman and strategic communications director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for a decade, but the biographic detail he tends to highlight most is his stint in the Clinton administration as a spokesman at the U.S. Agency for International Development. This role, and his work in Democratic politics earlier, is frequently brought up as a response to claims of partisanship. Block’s father, Rabbi Richard Block, was recently installed as president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

“He is a Scoop Jackson Democrat,” said William Daroff, vice president of public policy at the Jewish Federations of North America, when describing Josh Block’s views. “In his time at AIPAC and at TIP, he has done a yeoman’s effort in joining me in the post-partisan caucus of Jewish officials.”

The Israel Project hosts a panel of experts to discuss what lies ahead for Israel and for the region after Israel's upcoming elections. The panel, led by TIP CEO and President Josh Block: Michael Singh from the Washington Institute, Dr. Ziad Asali, founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, and guest scholar at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in the Brookings Institute Dan Arbell.

The temptation to read other nations’ politics as a reflection of our own is hard to resist, but it leads to faulty conclusions. The United States shares with Israel common values, respect for the rule of law and a determination to fight jihadist enemies that want to destroy us both. But Israel’s domestic politics, its multi-party parliamentary system and much else is unlike America’s.

The Jerusalem Post explained that Israel’s just-completed election campaign “focused squarely on domestic issues, and on a resounding call by the public to effect change in several key areas dividing Israelis: a fair share for the haredi community in the national burden of military and/or national service; the rising cost of living; and the growing gaps between rich and poor.” The second-place finisher in the race for prime minister, Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid, was a TV personality, essentially an icon for secular Jews.

Israelis woke up on Wednesday to a new political configuration, but a largely unchanged political reality. The country’s center-right and center-left blocs, within which different parties compete for and cannibalize each other’s votes, have been roughly stable for over a decade.

Last night, a centrist country, rooted in liberal, Western values identical to our own, gave its vote to parties clustered around the political center. Those who predicted a different outcome will now have to ask themselves which of their assumptions, or their agendas, led them so far astray.

Those predicting, or rather rooting for (in order to discredit) Israel to usher in some right-wing, anti-democratic regime were mistaken in their assumptions about both the country’s politics and what it means to be “right” or “left” in Israel.

There is, and was during this election, no viable peace party in Israel that wants to double down on the Oslo accords. After Lebanon, Gaza and the Arab Spring, the public at large has largely reached a consensus that a “two-state solution” isn’t happening any time soon and the formula of land for peace did not bring peace. So none of the top vote-getting parties put forth a foreign policy that was distinct from, let alone contrary, to the ruling Likud Party’s approach to both Iran and the Palestinians.

So why was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “rebuked,” as some claim? A Christian friend who lives both in Israel and the United States said wryly, “Because he didn’t pick up the dinner check in 1978.” In other words, the politics of personal animosity and style shouldn’t be underestimated. Moreover, since it was a given that Netanyahu’s party would get the most votes, his supporters generally stayed home, leaving other energized parties the opportunity to seize more seats.

Why then should the mainstream media in this country be so transfixed by the election results and so determined to paint them as a loss for Netanyahu? It should be obvious by now that, in its disdain for the Jewish state (that, the president tells us, doesn’t understand its best interests), the anti-Israel left saw the election as a contest between Obama and Bibi, between conservative and liberal (in the American parlance) and between pro-peace and pro-war. As Block puts it, “While doomsday predictions of Israel’s illiberalism, endless caricatures of a country being transformed by some emerging ultra-orthodox monopoly, and threats of a radical shift to the right may have been en vogue for pundits (and useful for those whose political agendas are served by such misleading portrayals) they stand in stark contrast to reality – and to the real State of Israel.”

What is interesting is that conservatives, unlike liberals in the United States, have not been rooting one way or another for this or that party in Israel. The very idea seems absurd to them; that we should second-guess a democratic electorate of an ally is anathema. It is for only those who infantilize Israel, treating it as incompetent to manage itself, that the stakes were so high and the opportunity to discredit the Israeli electorate so tempting.

It is also important to see the message Israel delivered to the Palestinian Authority, which has essentially refused to negotiate with the Netanyahu government, hoping either the United States or a new Israeli government would give them a better deal. Instead, Mahmoud Abbas, the Jerusalem Post noted, was a real loser: “[I]t seems as if his choice to refuse any and all negotiations more recently came up snake-eyes with the Israeli public. The message voters delivered to the Palestinians on Tuesday was loud and clear: If you won’t talk, Israel will stop listening.” Actually, Israel stopped listening when it became evident that it has no peace partner and land concessions, building freezes and negotiations are all useless, if not counterproductive.

Editor’s note: Josh Block is CEO & president of the Israel Project, a 501c3 nonpartisan organization based in Washington D.C. A former Clinton administration official at USAID, Block was also a member of the senior staff at AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby. You can follow him @JoshBlockDC. The views expressed are his own.

The months leading up to yesterday’s Israeli election were filled with confident forecasting. Israeli voters, analysts told us, were turning rightward and even losing confidence in the Jewish state's democratic institutions. Voter turnout would slouch toward all-time lows, and remaining voters would empower a government that was, depending on a pundit’s particular verve, “hardline,” “extremist,” “ultra-nationalist,” – or even worse.

Israeli voters, however, had other ideas. And now many of those pundits are expressing surprise at the turnout and composition of Israel’s 19th Knesset.

By the time polls closed last night, two-thirds of Israeli voters had cast their ballots, exceeding the last election's turnout after inching toward levels not seen in over a decade and a half. The Israeli public – caricatured on the eve of the election by one far-left voice as "sleepy, complacent and apathetic" – turned out to be far more engaged than many had imagined. Admirers of Israel’s boisterous democratic culture had every reason to feel buoyed.

And if Israeli voters spoke loudly, they also spoke clearly.

The night’s big winner was the centrist Yesh Atid party, which garnered 19 seats, far outrunning election-eve polls to become Israel's second-largest party. Founded and led by Israeli TV personality Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid offers a post-ideological pragmatism. The party couples an emphasis on tough national security with an explicit endorsement of a two-state solution, and promotes free market policies while insisting on the need to bolster the middle class. Meanwhile, Yesh Atid’s avowedly secularist agenda, its core brand, is expressed in terms of the need to integrate Israel’s ultra-orthodox and Arab minorities into the state's civil and military institutions.

Lapid himself is a secular icon in Israel. Though yesterday marked his first election night as a candidate, he is no stranger to politics. His father, Yosef "Tommy" Lapid, headed Israel's top secular liberal party, Shinui (Change), for seven years at the beginning of the last decade. While Yesh Atid is not strictly modeled on Shinui, it is in many ways its modern reincarnation.

Lapid and his party seem to reflect the current mood of the Israeli electorate: skeptical of Palestinian intentions but willing to take risks for peace, averse to old-style Israeli socialism but opposed to shredding Israel's social safety net, and socially liberal while respectful of religious expression.

As expected, the Likud-Beitenu list of incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to anchor a ruling coalition majority in Israel's 120-seat Knesset, landing 31 seats. It should surprise no one that Netanyahu's first coalition-building phone call after polls closed was to Lapid. Netanyahu has shown a strong predictive preference for broad centrist coalitions to those including religious parties and those to his right. He has repeatedly endeavored to forge coalition governments with Israel’s center-left parties, as with Labor and Kadima after the last election.

Netanyahu – like Ariel Sharon before him, who in his second political incarnation proved a pragmatist rather than an ideologue – is today the leading centrist among his Likud colleagues. And he appears already hard at work on building a center-right coalition – much like Sharon and Lapid the Father teamed up to do ten years ago. Given the little distance between the two on key issues – both are free-market-oriented, both are committed to a two-state solution including an undivided Jerusalem – it is highly likely that they will sit together in Israel's next government.

Last night's third-place party, and the one likely to lead Israel's Opposition in the next Knesset, is Shelly Yachimovich's Labor party. On foreign policy, Labor hews to the country’s consensus, sharing widely held skepticism of Palestinian intentions, while remaining committed to a negotiated solution. Domestically, Yachimovich has oriented the party to the left, moving to slow and even reverse Israel's economic liberalization. The party is projected to receive 15 seats in the incoming Knesset.

While doomsday predictions of Israel’s illiberalism, endless caricatures of a country being transformed by some emerging ultra-orthodox monopoly, and threats of a radical shift to the right may have been en vogue for pundits (and useful for those whose political agendas are served by such misleading portrayals) they stand in stark contrast to reality – and to the real State of Israel. Although it may confound Israel’s critics, the distribution of votes makes it overwhelmingly likely that, once again, both Israel’s next government and its opposition will be led by parties that back the two-state solution.

Israelis woke up on Wednesday to a new political configuration, but a largely unchanged political reality. The country’s center-right and center-left blocs, within which different parties compete for and cannibalize each other's votes, have been roughly stable for over a decade.

Last night, a centrist country, rooted in liberal, Western values identical to our own, gave its vote to parties clustered around the political center. Those who predicted a different outcome will now have to ask themselves which of their assumptions, or their agendas, led them so far astray.

The number of Americans expressing support for strengthening or maintaining America’s relations with Israel has risen by eight points, up now to 81 percent of actual voters in November 2012, compared to 73 percent of registered voters in November 2011, according to the latest Israel Project poll. 48 percent of American voters are now saying they want to “strengthen” the U.S. relationship with Israel.

The survey, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of The Israel Project, found increasing support for a close and growing U.S.-Israel alliance permeated views on wider Middle East policies throughout the survey. Fifty-nine percent of American voters say the United States should work more closely with Israel in the Middle East, versus just 24 percent who say the U.S. should work more closely with Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Americans overwhelmingly favor (69 percent) a two-state solution for “Israel as a homeland of the Jewish people and Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people,” and 57 percent oppose a U.N. resolution in favor of a Palestinian state in the absence of a peace agreement between the parties, with just 27 percent in favor of a unilateral declaration of independence.

“For more than 60 years, Israel has been extending its hand in peace to all their neighbors, and the Israeli people overwhelmingly favor a negotiated two-state solution. For those of us here in the U.S. who very much want Israel’s dream of peace to become a reality, the Palestinian unilateral effort at the U.N. – which will not result in any gain for people in the West Bank or Gaza, or a ‘state of any kind,’ since the UN General Assembly doesn’t have that authority – is a sad distraction, and the American public understands that,” The Israel Projects’ CEO Josh Block said.

A significant majority of Americans are concerned about the rise of the Islamist government of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, and nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters favor cutting aid to Egypt if the country abrogates its peace agreement with Israel, according to a recent poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of The Israel Project. Moves by Egypt to undermine democracy or not protect religious freedom are also reasons to cut U.S. aid, with Democratic voters seeing those moves as equally compelling as violations of the Camp David accords, while GOP voters are slightly more concerned with Egypt’s keeping peace with Israel.

The upheaval in the Middle East known as “The Arab Spring” has coincided with a significant jump in the percentage of American support for Israel, which is up by eight points during the past year, to 68 percent.

“Given the turmoil in the Middle East, increased support among the American public for deepening the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel is both a natural reaction and good policy,” Block said. “Americans know that Israel is our greatest and only truly reliable ally in the region, and that is truer today than ever.”

Fifty-five percent of American voters believe new governments like the one in Egypt threaten U.S. security interests, while forty-one percent strongly express that view. Just thirty percent believe the new governments do not threaten U.S. security interests because “they are likely to be moderate and become more pro-Western.”

Fifty-nine percent of American voters agree the U.S. should cut back its foreign aid to Egypt if the U.S. thinks Egypt is not keeping its treaty obligations to Israel, ignoring the argument that Egypt “has been a critical ally.” A large majority (76 percent) agrees – and 56 percent strongly agree – that the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is vital to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Unfavorable feelings toward Iran continue to be strong. Just nine percent hold a favorable view of Tehran, with 69 percent of American voters having an unfavorable view. In fact, there is a ten percent increase over the past year in support for the U.S. coming to the military defense of Israel against an Iranian attack. Seventy-one percent of American voters support the U.S. coming to the military defense of Israel if Israel were to strike Iranian nuclear facilities to keep it from getting nuclear weapons and then Iran attacked Israel in response. Furthermore, there is a very high intensity, with 49 percent of American voters strongly supporting this. One year ago, in November 2011, 61 percent of American registered voters supported military defense, with 39 percent strongly supporting.

“Imagine a world in which Iran goes nuclear. Will their abysmal human rights record improve? Will their effort to threaten and dominate their Arab neighbors be less menacing? Will their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt the global economy be less dangerous? Will their terrorist proxies, who already seek to attack right here in the United States, be more restrained? As President Obama has said repeatedly, Iran’s nuclear pursuit must be stopped, and the American people firmly believe that,” Block said.

American voters say the top reasons for the U.S. to be concerned about an Iranian nuclear program include the Iranian government’s statements regarding wiping Israel “off the map”; an acceleration of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; and the fact that the Iranian government arms and funds terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

The survey was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of The Israel Project. The respondents were interviewed via the telephone, November 6-8, 2012, beginning on election night, to assess where voters were just after casting their ballots. The margin of error for the survey is 3.5%.

A significant majority of Americans are concerned about the rise of the Islamist government of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, and nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters favor cutting aid to Egypt if the country abrogates its peace agreement with Israel, according to a recent poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of The Israel Project. Moves by Egypt to undermine democracy or not protect religious freedom also are reasons to cut U.S. aid, with Democratic voters seeing those moves as equally compelling as violations of the Camp David accords, while GOP voters are slightly more concerned with Egypt’s keeping peace with Israel.

The upheaval in the Middle East known as “The Arab Spring,” has coincided with a significant jump in the percentage of American support for Israel, which is up by eight points during the past year, to 68 percent.

“Given the turmoil in the Middle East, increased support among the American public for deepening the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel is both a natural reaction and good policy,” TIP CEO Josh Block said. “Americans know that Israel is our greatest and only truly reliable ally in the region, and that is more true today than ever.”

Americans overwhelmingly favor (69 percent) a two-state solution for “Israel as a homeland of the Jewish people and Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people,” and 57 percent oppose a U.N. resolution in favor of a Palestinian state in the absence of a peace agreement between the parties, with just 27 percent in favor of a unilateral declaration of independence.

“For more than 60 years, Israel has been extending its hand in peace to all their neighbors, and the Israeli people overwhelming favor a negotiated two-state solution. For those of us here in the U.S. who very much want Israel’s dream of peace become a reality, the Palestinian unilateral effort at the U.N. – which will not result in any gain for people in the West Bank or Gaza, or a ‘state of any kind,’ since the UNGA doesn’t have that authority – is a sad distraction, and the American public understands that,” Block said.

The number of Americans expressing support for strengthening or maintaining America’s relations with Israel also rose eight points, to 81 percent of voters in November 2012 compared to 73 percent of registered voters in November 2011, with nearly half of American voters now saying they want to “strengthen” the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Increasing support for a close and growing U.S.-Israel alliance permeated views on wider Middle East policy throughout the survey. Fifty-nine percent of American voters say the United States should work more closely with Israel in the Middle East, versus just 24 percent who say the U.S. should work more closely with Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Fifty-five percent of American voters believe new governments like the one in Egypt threaten U.S. security interests, while forty-one percent strongly express that view. Just thirty percent believe the new governments do not threaten U.S. security interests because “they are likely to be moderate and become more pro-Western.”

Fifty-nine percent of American voters agree the U.S. should cut back its foreign aid to Egypt if the U.S. thinks Egypt is not keeping its treaty obligations to Israel, ignoring the argument that Egypt “has been a critical ally.” A large majority (76 percent) agrees – and 56 percent strongly agree – that the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is vital to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Unfavorable feelings toward Iran continue to be strong. Just nine percent hold a favorable view of Tehran, with 69 percent of American voters having an unfavorable view. In fact, there is a ten percent increase over the past year in support for the U.S. coming to the military defense of Israel against an Iranian attack. Seventy-one percent of American voters support the U.S. coming to the military defense of Israel if Israel were to strike Iranian nuclear facilities to keep it from getting nuclear weapons and then Iran attacked Israel in response. Furthermore, there is a very high intensity, with 49 percent of American voters strongly supporting this. One year ago, in November 2011, 61 percent of American registered voters supported military defense, with 39 percent strongly supporting.

“Imagine a world in which Iran goes nuclear. Will their abysmal human rights record improve? Will their effort to threaten and dominate their Arab neighbors be less menacing? Will their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt the global economy be less dangerous? Will their terrorist proxies, who already seek to attack right here in the United States, be more restrained? As President Obama has said repeatedly, Iran’s nuclear pursuit must be stopped, and the American people firmly believe that,” Block said.

American voters say the top reasons for the U.S. to be concerned about an Iranian nuclear program include the Iranian government’s statements regarding wiping Israel “off the map;” an acceleration of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; and that the Iranian government arms and funds terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The “nuclear arms race” fears have merit. A separate poll conducted by TIP in Egypt this summer shows Egyptians want their own nuclear weapons. Likely a result of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, 87 percent of those surveyed agreed that Egypt, despite enormous financial problems and eight billion U.S. dollars in debt, should put its resources into developing nuclear weapons. Also revealing is Iran’s increasing popularity in Egypt, with 65 percent of the respondents approving of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi government’s decision to resume diplomatic relations with Iran and 60 percent agreeing that re-establishing a relationship with Iran will be good for Egypt.

The survey was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of The Israel Project. The respondents were interviewed via the telephone, November 6-8, 2012, beginning on election night to assess where voters were just after casting their ballots. The margin of error for the survey is 3.5%.